Remedies
Reading Assignment
For class on 10/1, read pp. 184-95. This reading involves constitutional issues raised by
potentially excessive punitive damages awards. As you read, consider the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The notes detail only briefly some of the issues re procedural due process. I will
discuss some of the issues involving how a jury can violate the constitution by
failing to use appropriate procedural safeguards at the beginning of class.
Why should courts get involved in the substantive due process issue? Doesn’t
common law review provide a sufficient safeguard against excessive damages?
BMW v. Gore was the first case to reverse a punitive damages award as excessive
under the substantive due process rationale – be familiar with the 3 guideposts it
announced.
How did State Farm v. Campbell apply the 3 guideposts from BMW v. Gore?
a. What is the most relevant of the 3 BMW v. Gore guideposts in determining
punitive damages? Why isn’t the original award of punitives justified under
this prong? Do you agree with the majority’s assessment of State Farm’s
behavior?
b. How does the court apply the second prong of Gore (re ratios)? When can
courts deviate from single multiplier ratios?
c. How is the 3rd Gore guidepost relevant – i.e., how is a court supposed to factor
in the existence of other civil/criminal penalties?
Did the Supreme Court frame the issue in Philip Morris Co. v. Williams as one
involving a procedural or substantive due process challenge?
a. After Williams can juries still take into account the harm caused to other
people in determining the reprehensibility of D’s conduct?
b. If so, what must a court do to guard against unfair awards?
c. Can juries actually operationalize what the SCT says they must do when
considering harm to others?
Also skim pp. 196-203 involving punitive damages in breach of contract situations.
Consider the following:
1.
2.
3.
Why is there a general hostility to punitive damages in breach of contract
situations and what are the recognized exceptions to that hostility?
What about the facts of Presidio make this an appropriate case for punitive
damages?
What if the Presidio defendant had intentionally begun scheduling deliveries or
multiple workmen after the project began? Is that fraud or just intentional
breach? Is timing everything on these sorts of claims for punitive damages?
Why?